|
* t
.o f ,
Farminq Systems Support Project F'SSP) Assistance
To The Proyecto de Tecnoloqia
Para Pequenos Agqricultores (P'TPA);
AID Project No. 526-T-029 in Paraguay
Review Team: Federico Poey, leader
*:iuan Carlaos Mart:i. nez
Ramiro O ti z
- i- .-~~-riiErr~-....~.--r-.~.-*-w~----~-- ----- ----~e -IU ---r----- -r--------- - ------~------ -1- I re
Page 2
Descri[)t ionn of Mfssicon !
it.e!: Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) assistance to
the Proyecto de lecnologia para Pequenos Agricultores
(PTPA); AID Project No. 526-T-029 in Para~ci.y,
ObUective: To assess on-farm-research and extension
components to suggest alternative operational adjustments
for the terminal phase of the project.
Sqcoe of Work:" To review PTPA's Operation Manual, Mid-term
Evaluation Report, AID Project Paper on Small Farm
Technology, and existing organization and methodology for
the generation, validation and recommendation of new
technologies within the research and extension activities.
Duratign: June 13 to July 2, 198:3
E i.egw .Iea i~.: FPederico Poey, Breeder-Seeds specialist.,
leader
Juan Carlos Martinez, Economist
Ramiro Ortiz, Agronomist
-~.--l;^~l.l-r~i*ir -. -----lil_r-Li-r;-ru.. I I 1- -- -;-- -CI-x,r-,.riirr---c :~._..,. ii..--~ :i.... ...ilrrel-riii~;-r.ir-rii-O*-~rii~LY1* ilr~n~i-,*:ii .r-:~-C1YL~-:
Paqe 3
ACRONYMS
AID
CRIA
CREDICOOP
CRDR
EAC
FSSP
IAN
MAG
OFR
PT PA
SEAG
SENSE
TAMU
Agency for International Development
Centro Regional de Investigacion Agricola
Central Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito
Centro Regional de Desarrollo Rural
Escuela Agromecanica de Caoacupe
Farming Systems Support Project
Institute Aqronomico Nacional
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia
On-Farm Research
Proyecto de Tecnologia para Pequenos Agricultores
Servicio de Extencion Agricola Ganadera
Servicio Nacional de Semillas
Texas A & M University
Page 4
CONTEXT
1. Overview
2. Introduction
3. Relevant Background
3.1 Origin and Objective of PTPA
3. 2 Operational Procedure
3.3 Present Status
4. Evaluation of Documents
4.1 PTPA Organization and Operational Manuals
4.2 Mid-Term Evaluation Report
4.3 AID Project Paper on Small Farm Technology
5. Organizational and Methodological Patterns
5.1 Methodology and Procedures
5.2 Administrative Procedures for Research Project.
Approval and Budget Allocation.
5.3 Operational Issues in Experimental Strategy and Trial
Management
5.4 Economic Evaluation of Contracted and Adaptive
Experimental Results
5,; 5 Frans re nce of Tfchno i.ogq,.y with inyitffi -cient Research
Information
5.6 Research Center Activities
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
7. References
ANNEX
A. Amendment: Orqanization Manuals, Section 5,
Page 5
Chapters 1 and 2.
Hi. Iitles and Relevant Information of Contracted and
Adaptive Research
C. Persons and Institutions Visited
.-.. ;. . . .-Li.l^. r._-(. :.~~.._.-I
Page 6
1. OVERVIEW
the PTPA project, financed by a $5 million loan and a
$1 million grant in 1979 had a major objective of involving
the small farmer in the process of generation and adaptation
of technology. Lack of early leadership with experience in
the field re-sulted in an overst.tructured cr-q...niz ati on with
strong Administration, Communication, Proqramminq and
Evaluation and 'raining Divisions and a subordinated
Technical Support Division that had no decision capacity.
None of three international full-time advisors from TAMU
were assigned to the Technical Support Division.
Specialists and extension agents attended to small farmers
through "committee groups" of some 20 farmers in each of the
seven regional centers.
e weak mechanism of technology generation carried on
experimental stations by contract is followed by an on-farm
adaptive research evaluation in one or very few locations
followed by demonstration plots. A "pilot project" concept
sometimes may reduce the number of states mentioned. In
every case t:h, number of locaCians i.too low to. mk-,
reliable recommendations. At so, the decisions on problem
identification and research opportunity, as well as
experimentation methodology is originated at the specialist
and agent level who send their suggested "protocol" to
headquarters in Asuncion. After receiving suggested
modifications, primarily on the experimental design chosen.,
the experiment is established. The project is centered
11
around food crops planted by small farmers-. Institutional
research on these crops is Limited as priority is given to
export crops.
Suggested recommendations included strengthening the
Technical Support Division to expand the adaptive research
sub-programs with more locations and specialists and to
reinforce problem identification and investigation
methodology with more active integration of the centrally
located specialists.
Based on the potential of CIMMYT's experimented maize-
variaties demonstrated in experimental station trials for
two years, it was suqqested to initiate coordinated on-farm
regional variety trials to be implemented in all the regions
as a catalytic sub-program that could serve to initiate and
motivate the review team's recommendations. It is expected
that the superiority of the experimental varieties will
produce an impact on the small farmers' practices that would
credit future actions of the extension service.
Paqe 8
2. INTRODUCTI ON
The members of the review team participated in small
group seminars at the University of Florida in Gainesville
to be briefed on the FSSP objectives and philosophy and to
receive guidelines for the mis-sion in Paraguay. The field
work in Paraquay w;as conducted from .Tune 15 to July 2, 1983.
The review team evaluated pertinent documents and
visited the SEAG's central office and regional centers,
small farmer fields, and the MtA research centers.
This report is divided in the follow.inq topics:
I. Overvi e~w
2. Introduction
3. Relevant Background
4. Evaluation of Documents
5. Organizational and Methodological Patterns
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
7. References
- ~l--~L~___-~~il~-^I.-__LI-IL-_- i
Page 9
3. RELEVANT BA:CKGRiIOUND
3.1 Origin and objectives of PTPA
The Small Farmr Technoloqy Project (PTPA) was initiated
in 1979 as the result of an agreement between the government
of Paraquay and the government of the United States of
America, represented by MAG and AID, respectively.. This
project would be the responsibility of SEAG, receiving
financial support in order to establish a decentralized
administrative structure that would facilitate its
operational activities. TAMU assisted in the implementation
of the Project, assigned three international full-time
advisors and attended seven candidates in post-graduate
training.
The general objective of the project was the
identification, generation, adaptation and diffusion of
appropriate technological innovatios that fit in the
production systems of small, limited resource farms of
Paraguay. In this process the farmers would play a major
role in each phase of the project.. The small farm crop
research comipoOnent Wias to he reinforced in ith:er than
traditional export crops such as cotton, soybeans, and
tobacco. To reach this objective an institutional strategy
was designed which included the following action-oriented
support decisions:
A. Modification of operational structure: Seven
Regional Rural Development Centers (CRDR) would be
Page 10
established (Fiq. 1) and an administrative division would be
created in SEAG's central headquarters. This
decentralization had its purpose in giving the regional
centers and their local agencies the means to execute
promptly their activities through adequate local
administrative support.
B. Support sub-programs: These were included as vital
components of the project to support SEAB's Proqram of
iechnoloqgv infusion through activities in specific areas
and financed through PTPA funds:
i. Adaptive and Contracted* research: On-farm
experimental and demonstrative activities
conducted by the regional centers and their local
agencies, and the execution of specific research
projects in experiment stations by the
agricultural research institutions, respectively.
ii. Improved seeds: SENASE would be in charge of the
supervision, production, distribution and sale of
seeds of the improved varieties and hybrids
developed and/or successfully tested by the
research stations and regional centers. A
revolving tunrd w:iou.i. d be made available to SENASE
from the project funds.
iii. Rural administration: Ai project started in 1975,
through an agreement between AID and MAG, would be
incorporated into the operational activities of
SEAi as to support PTPA's Technology Diffusion
Program.
FIG. 1
PROYECTO DE TECNOLOGIA PARA PEQUENOS
SAGRICULTORES (PTPA)
4-
5-. 0
0
Y~o
O AGENCIES DEL SEAG INVOLUCRAOAS
EN EL PRCYECTO
' ENTRO REGiCNAL CE DESARROLLO
RURAL
-'--
- I\
Page 11
iv. Small Farm Machinery Deeleopment: This unit would
be established in the EAC through a sub-agreement
between SEAG and EAC assigning project resources,
specifying operating criteria, and establishing
administrative and procedural arrangements.
C. Development of a plan to.implement and strengthen
the operative efficiency of SEAG through resident and
short-term consultants, trai-inin of technical and
administrative personnel, logistic support for the different
levels trf the PTF'A and increasing personnel.
3.2 Operational procedures
Although SEAG organizationally is under the Directorate
of Research and Ex;tensi.on, operationally it receives
direct instructions and communicate frequently with the
Minister of Agriculture and .Livestock (see Fiq. 2). SEAG .is
headed by a Director assisted by an Adjunct director, it has
+ive major central support divisions: Technological
Support, Programming and Evaluation, Training,
Communications and Administration (see Fig. 3 and 3A). The
position of the Director is directly over and linked to the
Supp rvi sin zones and CDR:', with a cooidi nator for PTPA
directly responsible. Local agencies constitute the final
stage or level in the organizational structure of SEAG.
The PTPA has provided SEAG .with the opportunity to
strengthen the Central Divisions, but thus far the
Technological Support Division has not been affected. New
personnel has been added to these four divisions, including
; _i_~_I _~ rLi Li^S^I I_ ~- .I I-
FIG. 2. Organigram of the Ministry of Agriculture
M.A,Q,
O1fICE OF THI MINISTER
DIRI(CTOIATE DIRECTORATE
I
OF INVESTIGA'r ION
ADMINISTRATION IXTENS ION
i(m:DrcooP CAll BNF SEAG TIAN SENASE OTHERS
CRIA
S EAG REGIONAL AND LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES
I--
FIG. 3. Organ!gram of SEAG describing delivery network
MTNI8TKrY OF AGRICULTURE
ICAG
DIRECTOR
C CENTRAL SU PORT DIVISIONS
Commun.
Divlulon
Program
Evaluation
Division
REGIONAL
I
I
U I L"UR
R E IONAL A N D LOCA L D E LIVERY NETWORK
Vei(cle Admiin.* Credit Agro Direct Tech. Conmmun. Program AdaLptive
Ma fintenaiice Support Coordtrinu Lil Siupply Service Support Support Evaluation Investigat.
IIi t1 lilts Units Unite Ag nt8 Unl te U itt UJillts iIln ts
1I I
FARM BENEFICIARIES
Admin.
Division
Training
Division
Tech.
Support
Division
L I Ill I m
I
--
SMALL
FIG. 3a At Orgaiigrami of SLAG describingRDR Part.icpi Llion,
1/ Centro Regional de Desarrollo Rural del PTPA.
Page 12
three resident international advisors from TAMU. These have
been appointed to the Communications, Progranmminq and
Eval uat ion Di visions and to the- Coordi nation:
(Administration) of the PTPFA,, Currently, at the regional
level, si- CRDR's are operating with a total of 53 local
agencies organizationally annexed to them. One more CRDR
has been contemplated i.n the project and it will begin its
active ties in 1984,, About 58,'c000 small farms would be
covered by the project.
A great concentration of small farms has been the main
criterion in selecting a region for the creation of a CRDR.
Each center has a Head (agronomist) and a team of
specialists (crops, agricultural economics, livestock., and
home economics) supported by a programming evaluator, an
administrator and a communications specialist. Each local
agency has at least a head agent (crops), a home economics
agent and a youth clubs (4-H) agent.
In conclusion, the creation of the CRDR's is the most
important aspect of the PTPA along with intended
participation of the farmer in determining the constraints
prevalent in the small farms. This along with the fact that
adapt-ive r-search was to be conducted in representative
farms of each area and working directly with the farmer
gives F'F'A the potent ality to generate appropriate
technology for the small farms.of Paraguay.
3.3 Present Status
Several issues have arisen that contrast in form and
_ _I ~_(~I ______~ ~ t ~ _( I.il.-i i.. Il
Page 13
intensity with what had been expected and prevent PTPA from
reaching its goals. However, a most positive aspect has
been identified in the regional organization of the PTPA:
the desire and motivation among the specialists and agents
at the regional level in conducting their activities. The
potential success of the project lies on the training and
adequ-a.te techni ca.l and e:conrcni c support otf thei- r-eq it na.l.
teams.
The major constraints identified are of the most
diverse nature, but they can be grouped into two major
categories: organizational and methodological.
A. Organizational constraints
:i. An administration role has been qiven to the
coordination of the PTPA preventing the
coordinator and the resident consultants from
having a more frequent and technical contact with
the CRDR'"s which is mostly needed" true leadership
in the project is still to be found,
ii. The Technical Support Division has been the only
one where personnel has not been increased and the
one that. in.eded :it the mOst. e'i other haf s a-%ny,
international advisors been assigned to it.
Besides this, there is little evidence of the
involvement of experts from this division in the
operational activities of'the PTPA at the regional
level. These reasons have determined the lack of
technical depth in the activities of th CRDR's and
deficiencies in the process of generating and
._ 1_1__ 1 __1~___~II Y~ I _;__YI__IX__ULU____UIIYILILI
Paqe 14
adapti ng techno. ogi cal inn oviat:i aons,
iii. Decentralization of activities has not been
achieved in the expected measure, The specialists
from the CRDR's still have to submit each of their
field project proposals to the coordination of
PTPA in the central headquarters and wait for
their approval along iith the liberation of funds
from the Administration Division in order to.begin
their work. -
iv. Insufficient funds have been assigned and; this h.s
maintained the size of the research activities
below the critical mass required to achieve
meaningful results in the adaptation of new,
techno oqy.
B. Methodoloqical constraints
i. Research priorities should be established in basis
o+ the importance and frequency of an identified
constraint across the small farms in the region.
Instead, research projects are determined most of
the times by the observation capacity of an agent
in his work area and a psecia-ist that. is called
up-,on for advice h:is simple asystem:atic
procedure causes the undertaking of projects that
may. easily be of no relevance to most of the farms
in the region and more important constraints may
be o:erl looked,
ii. Farmers.in the region have little involvement in
establishing research prior ti es. This is a
Page 15
consequence of the previously explained
methodological constraint. Only a few farmers,
the ones usually working with an agent, are
usually surveyed in assessing the ex;istance of a
prob 1 em.
ThIese issues iwil! be : further discussed in other
sections of this report al. ong with- the fo llowinq constraints
that are now stated in their simplest form:
a. Limited multidisciplinary interaction in the
identification of research priorities.
b. Confusion in the conceptual understanding of the
different phases of the generation and adaptation of new
technology.
c. Persistance and/or acceptance by the PTPA of the
"technology package" approach over the generation of simple
technological alternatives.
d. Definition of training priorities.is inconsistent in
its organization and should be based upon a study that
identifies the areas where PTPA needs strenqtheninq.
N.
_ ___ ____.__L ii _r I_ 1_11 _r _ ___ i _ll~;___~___~~I__ _~II~_ ~__I _~_L_
4. EVALUATIiON OF DOCuME!NTS
4.1 PF'sTF'P Orq.ani. nation and Operational Manual
This three-volume manual was published in 1980 as a
working document that determines the hierarchical
organization and objectives of FIPA and also the activities
and areas of responsibility for each sector of the project
estabi ish:ing a rational integrati on aimonq them in order to
achieve the institutional qoals. The criteria, procedures,
and methodological aspects are also defined in order to
serve as guidelines in the operational phase of each sector.
A review of Section 5, Chapter I and II, Volume III of
the manual was included in the scope of work. This portion
describes concepts, procedures, and methodologies involved
in contracted and adaptive research, pilot projects, and
demonstration plots. This section has already been amended
in January 1982 due to the confusion that existed in
conceptualizing some of these states in the technology
generationand adaptation process. The forthcoming comments
are made based on this amendment, which is included in Annex
A.
4.1.1 Contracted research.
It is defined as a study conducted in an experimental
area of a research institution to generate possible
solutions for a problem already identified by a CRDR and
approved by the Coordinati on of PF'TP as relevant to the
farming systems of the region. Through an agreement
Page 17
previously established between SEAG and the research
institution, a contract is issued by which SEAG will provide
the financial support and the other institution provides the
experimental area and conducts the study. Usually, only one
experiment is conducted with no limitations for the number
of treatments to be included and with the appropriate
expert mental design. Researchers carry on total
responsibility and the team of CRDR specialists only
collaborate providing the necessary information on the
problem to design the experiment.
In the amendment, no emphasis is put on the fact that
the specialists should follow closely the development of
these experiments and not only wait for the partial or final
reports. This would give them the opportunity to acquire
valuable experience in research procedures and trial
management along with first-hand knowledge of the generated
technology. A critical aspect that has been overlooked is
that the two experiment stations where most of the
contracted research is being conducted (Caacupe and Capitan
Miranda. are not representative of the conditions prevalent
in the s!ital 1 fars of the ares for whi h Ithe resul ~ts are
presumably valid. Climatic conditions may be similar but
sil and management factors show great variability across
each region. Research that includes variables that are
affected by the variability in soil-and management factors
(e.g. fertilizers, *weed control. should be moved out of the
stations and conducted on farms. On-farm contracted
research has started to be conducted by researchers in the
Page 18
Caacupe area,,
4.1.2 Adaptive research.
It is defined as a qroup of potential solutions to a
problem identified in a region that is evaluated at the farm
level by the specialists of the CRDP. The results from
previous basic research and contracted research projects
provide a set of promising technologies that in reduced
number are matched against a "check" treatment (the
traditional technology of the region).
Adaptive research trials are the responsibility of
specialists of the CRDR's that are assisted by research
advisors in the process of design and evaluation of the
trial. The cooperating farmer and local extension agents
are involved in each phase of the trial.
Although on-farm research in qi vinq PIPA the
opportunity to identify solutions through evaluation under
real conditions, there are several aspects that limit the
strength of the adaptive as well as contracted research
concept. Two of these limitations are the reduced number of
trials and the management of non-experimental variables at
:n o.ptir.m. level. In nios c-ss only one contracted
research (one trial) provides the information from where
treatments are selected for adaptive research, and in this
following phase only one trial in one farm is established.
From this limited evaluation, a new technology with
insufficient evidence of its adaptation potential may be
selected to be promoted in demonstration plots. The other
Page 19
limitation related to the non-experimental variables managed
at a level different than the farmers' practices hinders the
reliability of the final recommendation. It should be
recognized that managing those variables at optimum
conditions makes new technology reliable only when those
conditions can be met, which may not be the case in small
farms. Henceforth, this newi technology has low adaptation
and adoption potent als.,,
One alternative to increase the number of farms covered
in an adaptive research project, is establishing one
replication per farm. This strategy would enable the
selected newi technology to better meet variable conditions.
Another alternative is selecting the minimum size plot for
each treatment to record the required observations which may
result in maximizing available resources to increase the
number of replications.
4.1.3 Pilot Projects.
The sub-program covers the introduction of new
promising technologies into a region without any previous
evaluation under the prevalent agro-cli matic conditions. A
pilto1t projiec:t is conducted An a farm w.i t h a research
specialist taking responsibility for its management. The
f~imers and local agents can be coll aborators through
different stages of this trial.. Because nf its innovative
nature, this new technology is not compared to a "local"
check and it usually consists of more than one component and
an economic analysis is performed. Technologies for
livestock production are mostly evacuated in pilot pro jets.
When the evaluation is over and if the new-technology is
economically "successful," this set of practices will be
included in a demonstration project and its use will be
promoted among the farmers of the region.
An important aspect to he considered in the conduction
for the evaluation of crop production practices that are
risky in the sense of their adaptation to the local
environment. It must be remembered that a failure in a farm
activity will always be a long step backward in gaining the
farmers' confidence. These types of technologies should
always be screened first in an experiment station of the
region or in land rented by the specialists. If there is a
failure then, it can always be kept "with-in the family."
On the other hand, technoloq es for livestock production may
be better suited for this type of evaluation.
It is not clear yet how it is decided that a new
technology has the potential to fit the local conditions and
that it will improve economically the existing farming
stems. Neither has the role that the farmer- plays in
selecting the technologies, to be included in the pilot
project, been defined. Emphasis should be made in defining
what type of conditions should exist in a region and what
type of characteristics should a new technology have in
order to be included there. It is also important to
identify what type of limitations would restrict its use.
Without the farmers' participation and a clear definition of
Pane 20
Page 21
the reliability of the technology, the pilot project
currently constitutes a rural development activity rather
than an integral phase of the process for the generation and
adaptation of technology for small farms.
4.1.4 Demonstration Projects.
Successful technologies evaluated through adaptive
research or a pilot project will then be included in a
demonstration project in a farm and is compared to the
farmers' traditional technology. The objective here is to
promote the use of the new technology under the assumption
that it will perform better than the local check. The local
agent and the coll aborating farmer will manage this trial
and a CRDR specialist will assist them in the design.
Groups of farmers are invited to visit the demonstration
plot and they are briefed on the new technology.
The great potential limitation that hinders the success
of a demonstration plot is the fact that the new technology
has been evaluated in only one farm in the previous stage.
In the case of crop production practices, this is rot enough
evidence h =t the tec::'hnoloq:v w:i. ll perform ,we ll in the farms.-.
of the area sin-ce the existing variability was not properly
sampled.
Another limitation, which is related to the adoption
process, is that the farmer has very little participation in
the whole process just as it is now designed. There is not
a stage where he manages and evaluates by himself alone the
ne-w technology to give an estimate of its adoption
Page 22
potential. Without giving him more participation the whole
process may be heading in the wrong direction and the result
could be an unreliable technology with no acceptability from
the people for whom it was generated.
4.2 Mid-'lerm Evaluation Report
On July 2, 1982 Fret es and associ ados, a lIocal
consulting firm conducted a thorough evaluation of the PFTP
project which concentrated on financial and operational
aspects. The terms of reference included specific
evaluation guidelines and other organization and operational
documents. The aspects related to the generation,
validation, and recommendation of new technology were
considered in relation to number of units achieved versus
programmed, but practically no assessment was made on the
quality and adequacy of these aspects.
The report establishes, however, a weak technical
component in the overall institutional organization as a
consequence of strengthening the Divisions of
Administration, Programming and Evaluation, Training, and
Conmmunica.i ons in contrast to the Di:vision of T'echnical.
Support, which was not even included as a subject to be
evaluated in the guidelines given.
Some of the main conclusions mention a generally slow
process as evidenced by delays in signing and implementing
the project,, slow utilization of AIDl. funds, restrictions in
assigning local funds, and the overall complexity and
innovative nature of the project. A lack of conceptual
Paqe 23
clarity of the objectives and components of the research
sub-proqram is mentioned as a major cause for delaying the
initiation of adaptive research for almost three years.
However, it considered satisfactory the number of pilot
projects and demonstration plots (13 and 64 respectively for
year 2). The review team considered the number too small;
even the number of plots programmed, 15 and .113 respectively
for one year, is considered too low, especially because they
include- various crops and different types of projects.
It must be realized, however, that the CRDR personnel
also have responsibilities in handling livestock, farm
management and home economics projects which takes up to 50
percent of their time and resources.,
A solution to the lack o-f conceptual -clarity was
attempted through an amendment to the Organization and
Procedures Manual that: establishes the new concept of
"Contracted Research" (to the experimental stations) and
strengthens the "Adaptive Research" concept (see Annex A).
The review team considers that the diversity and nature
of the projects being contracted, which originate by a very
specii c local int rest of t.he more m ;a. Ivated extension
agents and/or special its, reflect a lack of priority
definition and questionable experimental procedures. Titles
and relevant information of "Contracted and Adaptive
Projects" are included in Annex B.
Some recommendations of the report, mention training of
CRDR heads and specialists in the interpretation of research
components and improving the supervision and control
.r^VII~C-V--JI"~V-- I* 'L'~-"-~- ~Lur-; ------i-- i rr-L';-il--i;- ';L----~~ ~-~~Y-~L---rrsrWij----;-r~-rir------i-
Paqe 24
systems. It also suggests the appointment of a coordinator
to handle research and related activities.
Regarding the technical assistance, the report finds
that the achievements of resident and short term advisors
were adequate in quality but not in numbers. This
conclusion was stained according to the goals set for
assistance in communications, administration, programming
and evaluation, livestock, home economics, and training.
However, the review team considers the assistance in
crop on-farm research requires a much higher Jevel than what
was originally defined. This limitation reflects the lack
of early leadership in procuring the objectives of the
project related to the small farmers' participation in these
activities.
this study recommended to e; tend the life span of the
project for two additional years. AID agreed to make the
extension for one year, considering that their local office
is programmed to be closed by then.
4.3 AID Project Paper Small Farm Technologyi
This document def .i ned a.s AID/LACF /P-01 15 FPr o i ect nLtnmb::er
526--c01lr0 defines the goals and purpose of the project with a
detailed feasibility analysis, financial plans, and project
implementation conditions that originated the PTPA project.
The project was estimated to be operative in the last
quarter of 1979 with a financial assignment of (U.S.) $5
million loan and a $1 million grant, both from AID. The
hast country was committed to finance another $3,657,200 in
Page 25
local currency Q equivalent.
The $5 million loan w.as assigned in the following
manner:
SEAG's operating costs and investments
Small farm machinery development
Seed revolving fund
- '-rch operation
Trai ning
Tech. assistance, consultants and specialists
Inflation and other
2,903,500
319,100
450, 000
140,000 .
442, 400
411,200
333,800
The $1 million grant was assigned to resident advisors (8
man years), short-term consultants (141 man months) and
other related costs,
The $3,657,2:00 equivalent in local currency was
assigned to increment project related salaries, operating
and other costs, inlcuding adjustments for inflation.
In reviewing the document, it is evident that certain
expectations did not materialize or can be considered
incongruent with the general objectives of the project.
For e-:emple the al .1 location of $140:,000 for research
operations seems inadequate considering the relatively high
nuL..~ber of locations and personnel that should be involved in
the on-farm activities.
But even the limited number of potent ial activities
were not executed. The project rationale was that a
prominent part of the activities were to be of promising
alternatives under the small farmers' own management. The
Page 26
explanation given for this serious limitation was, first, a
lack of clear concept of research and evaluation, and later
the solution reached to contract research which puts it back
in the experiment station.
Regarding training opportunities, the project calls for
some 43 local course, 15 observations or workshop trips, plus
30 other trips to short-term formal. courses of six to 12
weeks duration, all with amrpl.e budgets. This opportunity
has been used well in numbers, but hardly no particular
activity related to on-farm research was apparently held,
reflecting again the relative low priority assigned to this
objective of PTPA.
The lonq-term training assignment opportunities to
Master of Science degrees has been practically executed.
However, all candidates were concentrated in only one
university which prevents a wider interaction with other
on-going academic orientations.
Regarding the technical assistance in the project, a
permanent extension specialist was assigned to the SEAG's
Programming and Evaluation Division. This arrangement has
been instrumental in diverting the specialist's attention
from the more creative agronomic assistance. required for the
proper development of the on-farm research program, His
particular assistance should be strongly focused to advise
the generally young and inexperienced agents and specialists
of the regional centers in the adequate identification and
conduction of the fie ld trials.
The seed component of the PTPA deserves close analysis,,
Paq e 27
The original project assigned SENASE with the responsibility
to supervise, produce and deliver seeds to .the small farmers
of the Project. However, the real contribution of SENASE to
the project has been minimal. Very low, volumes of seeds
handled indicate inefficient use of the $450,000 revolving
fund assigned. This situation could be explained by the
fact that the "improved varieties" of maize, cowpea and peas
are not really better than the farmers' own varieties.
SENASE-'s handling of those seeds only improve the
germination and physical purity, but seldom can this
handling alone improve the yield potential enough to justify
purchase of new seed every year. The distinction between
"improved seed" and "improved variety" has to be clearly
understood. Furthermore, improved varieties should be
evaluated and accepted by the small farmer before he
considers to purchase seed in the market. If the variety is
proven superior to his own, even small farmers who are used
to save their own seed will buy it to plant part of their
field or to renew a portion of their seed needs.
Getting the small farmer to use seed of improved
varieties is a difficult task. It can be achieved, however,
through the invol ve.-ent of selected fa" irmers of thA community
that can be motivated to establish a "cottage industry" type
of'seed activity with some outside guidance and equip ment
service. By this strategy the economic incentive can be
present, the final selling price of the seed would be lower,
and the subsidy cost only necessary as it relates to the
support activity.
Page 28
5. ORGANIZATIONAL AND METHODLOGICAL PA TERNS
The field work of the Review Team included visits to
the Regional Centers of Ita, Coronel Bogado, Ybycui and
Cordillera and to the Research Centers of IAN in Caacupe and
CRIA in Capitan Miranda. The activities involved in each
case included joint meeting ls, ith directives and staff,
visits to the extension agencies, the on-far.m and station
trials, and conversations with farmers.(1)
Regarding the organization of the CRDR, they basically
replicate at the regional level the pattern of organization
of the PTPA at the national level. Accordingly, in addition
to the Regional Head, the local teams include specialists in
agronomy, livestock, agricultrual economics, programming.,
communication, and home economics. These specialists are
normally located in the regional headquarters supporting the
activities of the different extension agencies under the
jurisdiction of the Center.
The agronomy and livestock specialists appear to be the
personnel more involved with the limited OFR operations of
1 ) In terms of Contracted and Ada -tie Research, the CP.OR's
centers visited represented 95 percent of the research
trialss) conducted in 1982/83. The remaining 5 percent was
at the time of the review in the flooded lands-of Neembucu.
the centers. They provide the (limited) liason with JIAN and
CRIA in the case of contracted research; are responsible for
the Adaptive. Research and Pilot Projects, and support the
Demonstration Plots which are more in the hands of extension
agents. The economists seem to be more concentrated in farm
management issues rather than being involved in the process
of generation-adaptati on of technology. The discussions
with the regional staff were centered around the OFR
activities of the centers, including the links with
experiment station research done by IAN and CRIA. From
these discussions, the major areas of concern appear to be:
1. Methodology and procedures for identification of research.
2. Administration procedures for research project approval and
budget location.
3. Operational issues in experimental strategy and trial
management.
4. Economic evaluation of contracted and adaptive experimental
results.
5, transference of .technology with insufficient research
information.
5.1 Methodology and Frocedu.res for Identification of
Research Opportunities
Research opportunities are identified at the regional
level as a result of a process which relies heavily on the
perception of individual staff members, either agent of
specialists. Regional staff have developed a so called
"situation study" which attempts to provide an
agro-socioeconomic description of the area of influence of
the Center. [his has been initially implemented in each
center through a type of non-systematic informal survey.
More recently a standardized formal questionnaire (designed
for all regions by the Central Programming Division) has
been implemented by some of the centers and presumably will
be completed by all the regionals in the near future. (2)
Regarding the design of the questionnaire, it is sufficient
to say that it is a comprehensive one, with 31 pages,
covering education, land tenancy, assets, production
activities, technology and value of production, technical
assistance, housing, and family households. The Review Team
estimates that an appropriate filling of this questionnaire
should take between two and three hours. In any case, it
seems that this effort in developing "situation studies"
concentrates in the descriptive aspects with only weak (if
any) links with the process of generation of technology.
(2) Situation studies and formal surveys are contemplated in
the operational manual.
Page 30
Paqe 31
Research opportunities are then defined in bottom up
approach of additive nature. Research projects (trials)
evolve from a cumulative and non-articulated process in
which, through regional staff perceptions, what appears to
be a critical problem is addressed with one trial proposal
(normally isolated) which presumably could provide a
solution to the problem in question. The conclusion then is
that no systematic procedure exists to derive research
opportunities from problem identification done at the
regional level.
As a result of the situation described above,
Contracted Research conducted in 1982/83 covers nine
different experimental variables (associated with the
different research opportunities identified) which were
addressed with only 10 trials, while the figures for
adaptive research are eight experimental variables and 11
trials (See Annex B).
The figures above confirm the perception of the Review
Team that research efforts are not concentrated in a minimum
set of technological components (priorities) but rather
disperse in a wide ranqe of them in such deIree ihat
experimental variables involved are far from beirn covered
by a minimum number of trials required to formulate farmer
recommendations. The total annual number of trials
conducted in all PTPA would be appro ximately the number
required to adequately cover UFR for only one ta-get crop in
only one of the seven regions involved.
In summary, identification of research oppo-tunities
Page 32
has not and will not result in concentration of OFR efforts
in a minimum set of research priorities unless current
procedures for problem identification are adjusted and
operationally strengthened.
f5.2 Administrative Procedures for Research Project Approval
and Budget Allocation
The procedures described above result~ in research
proposals originated at local level, normally involving only
one trial. These research proposals follow an
administrative channel which goes from the regional Head of
CRDR to the National Coordinator of PTPA; the Programming
Division for review, the National Director of PTPA ,for final
approval and to Administration for final budget allocation.
Technical review is done at the Programming Division. rhis
is done most of the time by just checking in the
headquarters office written "protocolos" including the
proposal. It appears rather evident that the staff involved
can hardly judge on the selection of research opportunities
(as opposed to alternatives not included in the proposal)
just reading the protocollo" The same is true for issues
,of: e::per:imental stratey and trial managementn. ILt looks
that these matters should be discussed and clarified at
regional levels, in the field, with direct and live
participation of headquarters staff. "lhe young (and
relatively inexperienced) regional specialists from the
centers are enthusiastic about their research work and will
clearly welcome effective technical support on the diverse
technical problems that they necessarily have to confront in
their field work with or without support.
In any case, it looks like the screening process
conducted in the Programming Division is strongly based on
issues of experimental design. (3) Given that no particular
reason was found to explain this bias, it may have resulted
from the disciplinary comparative advantage of the staff
involved. It is clear that a reasonable experimental design
would be a necessary yet not sufficient condition +or proper
OFR orientation. Futhermore, even in this area, the limited
technical interaction between headquarter and regional staff
in the planning process may result in inappropriate
recommendations for setting the trial. One example may help
to illustrate this point. One of the centers proposed to
conduct a trial on onions being liming the experimental
variable addressed to neutralize soil acidity and aluminum
toxicity. Basic design proposed completely randomized
blocking with four replications. Some delay in the planning
process lead the regional director to proceed with planting
before it was too late while attempting to finalize the
technical approval process by phone. In a phone call to the
Programming Division, the bulk of the discussion referred to
>3).Notice that a perfectly designed set of trials addressed
to a non-critical technological component could be a
rigorous exercise in futility, which in any case will not
significantly contribute to increase productivity and income
of representative area farmers.
Faqe 34
the issue of experimental design., In particular, since the
plot was assumed to be homogeneous, headquarters strongly
argued for a completely randomized design (no blocking) in
order to increase degrees of freedom of the error. On the
other side, the center director attempted to argue for the
blocking since the trial was already being planted with the
original ly proposed design. The cent-er director did not
completely understand all the arguments of statistical
"purity" given by headquarters and had to give up to a final
decision in which project proposal was rejected due to
inappropriatee" design. The fact that the trial had been
planted anyway gave the Review Team the chance to see what
was actually happening in the field.
The visit to the trial revealed that plot topography
was indeed slightly inclined and blocking was appropriate.
However, blocking had been done in strips parallel to the
gradient instead of across the gradient. In addition, the
presence of one tree was affecting one of the blocks. The
way the planning process set up implied that headquarters'
staff could not be aware of these details. In addition, the
.trial could have been broken in two tri als of two
replications each in different locations increasing the
poqer to extrapolate results with a similar amount of
research resources. Finally, experimental plot size could
have been reduced (considering the amount of labor involved
in transplanting) without sacrificing precision for yield
estimation.
Paqe 35
5.3 Operational Issues in Experimental Strategy and Trial
Management
Experimental design, number of sites and replication
per site, level of experimental and non-experimental
variables, hypothesis about relevant interactions and iways
of capturing them through research, articulation of
technological components in different sets of trials, are
all part of the issues- normal. y discussed in planning and
executing on-farm research ex-periments.
In the particular case of PTPF some of the issues
deserve to be considered. Experimental design as related to
the planning process was already mentioned in the previous
section. With regard to number of sites and replications
there has been an emphasis on the second element while
practically ignoring the first one. A research opportunity
is normally incorporated in the research program through a
unique trial with about four replications per site. It
appears to be evident tha there is much to be gained in
these circumstances by decreasing replications and
increasing number of trials.. The need to extrapolate
results in recommendations requires to capture across-site
v=iari.i.abiit in combined t stati -ti caj analysis. Farmer
recommendations can never be made on the basis of only one
tr-ial.
Finally, non-experimental variables should, in general,
be fixed as close as possible to the prevailing farmer
practices.- By doing so, the response obtained in the trial
for the different treatments will more closely approximate
Page 36
the response that the farmer would have.
5.4 Economic Evaluation of Contracted and adaptive
Ex perimentra Results
It appears that no economic analysis of experimental
result is carried in the case of Contracted and Adaptive
Research. F or advancig -n recommendations to be incorporated
into Demonstrations or Pilot Project, this analysis will be
required. A simple partial budgeting technique will suffice
to accomplish this task:. The method of economic evaluation
of experimental results should be easily accessible to the
non-economist specialists in the regional teams.(4) In any
case, analysis should be performed estimating marginal
benefits and costs taking farmer practice as a starting
point.
5.5 Transference of rechnoloqy with Insufficient Research
Information
here have been cases along the Pt'PA execution in which
technologies not validated through on-farm research were
m'ade avi hi.e to armers through i I.ot Pro je s,
Demonstrations, and/or untested recommendations (i.e, case
(4) A simple and widely diffused methodology could be found
in Perrin et al 1976. Formulacion de Recomendaciones a
Partir de Datos Agronomicos: Un Manual Metodologico de
Evaluacion Economica. CIMMYT, 1978.
of "improved" variety of peas where low germinating seed of
an unaccepted variety was amply distributed). Even though
this may be based on a legitimate attempt of speeding up
diffusion of improved technologies, it involves the
extensionists in a high risk venture that may compromise, in
case of failures.
5.6 Research Center Activities
Both IAN at Caacupe and CRIA at Captian Miranda have
strongly defined priorities for crops that contribute to
improve the national foreign exchange situation. These are
cotton, tobacco, soybean and wheat. Crops common to small
farmers as maize, cassava, rice, cowpea, dry beans, banana,
etc., receive only limited attention and practically no
on-farm activities are carried on with these crops. Maize
and cassava represent the number 1 and 2 crops of importance
from the small farmers viewpoint. There is a national
estimate of 400,000 has. of maize and a significant area of
cassava grown practically all by small farmers all over the
country,
fhe maize program has rceiv ed col lacboration from
CIMfMYT during the last few years besides counseling from an
international resident advisor from IiCA that is now
completing his term. At the research centers, CIMMYT's
experimental varieties have demonstrated excellent
superiority over the standard local variety currently
recommended. For two years, practically all of CIMMYT's
experimental varieties yielded above the check, often more
Paqe :38
than double, were dramatical ly earlier to -flowering, as much
as 20 days, and invariably lower in plant and ear height.
Many of CIMHMY 's experimental varieties have grain
characteristics undistinquishable from the local varieties.
It is the opinion of the Review feam that this
information justifies an immediate recommendation to advance
a selection of some of those varieties to be included in an
extensive farm evaluation process. Simultaneously,--initial
seed multiplication should be started for further commercial
production of the ones eventually identified as the best.
The local tradition for food consumption calls for
three major'qrain types: yellow flint, white flint, yellow
flowery and white pop corn. The yellow flowery type yields
much less than the yellow flint, claiming a market price
that goes as high as two or three times the price of yellow
flint corn when it is scarce..
Of particular interest for improving the small farmers'
diet, the flowery.types are quite similar to the opaque-2
soft kernel varieties. At the experimental level, the maize
program offers a flowery endosperm Opaque-2 variety
introduced from Brazili. hat variety, however-, has a +flat
dented grain type that contrasts with the roundish smooth
grain of the local +flowery variety. The O~paque-2 varieties
with flowery endosperm, including those from the earlier
conversion program of CIMMYT, deserve to be tested and
farm-evaluated.
It was reported to the team that the national
cooperative project CREDICOOP occasionally delivered
Page 39
hybrid seed from Brazil to small farmers some years ago.
Hybrids from Brazil and Arqentina respond well in the better
soils close to the Parana river, justifying .importation by
the big farmers, The amount of imported seed could not be
established because of the lack of official controls on the
importation of seeds from the neighboring countries.
~ _~_ __j I
Page 40
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA-'VT IONS
the present organization of the PIPA could result in an
appropriate mechanism to achieve the generation, validation
and transference of technology for the small farmer. The
established concept of adaptive research and the allocated
s.peci al. i st :in the. FPegi on. Centers c:rnst: i t:lue the pri ncipal
framework on which to expand activities. However, the
original conceived orientation of the P'TPA givnq decisive
participation to the small farmer in the process of
generating appropriate technology planned in the initial
stage of the project implementation has been limited as a
consequence of the stronger emphasis placed in reinforcing
existing components of SEAG's organization.
The lack of support and leadership in technical aspects
has contributed to the confusion created in the absence of
an organized technical operational strategy. Current
on-farm activities of PTPA are isolated efforts that
urgently require a clear orientation for the search and
adaptation of technological innovations. Another limitation
:i.n the MA G research orqani z nation .is that t.he secondIar-
priority assigned to the food crops typical of the small
farmers, restricts the strong scientific backing necessary
to support on-farm research.
Critical areas that requires special attention to
improve the efficiency of the project are the following.
6.1 Institutional components
Page 41
Human resources and logistical support are suggested to
be improved by the followiinq action:
A. Strengthening the Division of Technical Support by:
I) upgrading its hierarchical position at the.same level as
the Divisions of Administration, Communication, Programming
and Evaluation, and training, and 2) assigning personnel
with technical. ex-pertise superior to the level. of the C:RDL'
specialists. An international advisor with no less than
three years of actual experience on on-farm research is
strongly recommended to be contracted, if possible, for the
rest of the project.
B. 'raining of field personnel for specific technical
expertise on on-farm research, evaluation and demonstration
by participating in in-country and overseas short-courses
and visits to areas of excellence on the subject.
C. In order to update local knowledge and appreciation
on OFR activities and the farming systems approach, it is
recommended to request assistance of FSSP to carry on a
short (one-w~eek) seminar or workshops addressed to decision
makers, followed by an intensive course on applied
methodology on:r f:armini.g syvsti:ms and OFR for CR')F and
interested research staff.
6.2 Methodology for on-farm research
The following aspects need to br. taken into
consideration for a more meaningful use of resources.
A. The suqqested "new" Division of. technical Support
should take leadership at the regional level, in the
Page 42
identification of research opportunities, giving emphasis to
a more personal involvement in the field diagnosis instead
of a descriptive formal analysis of the region.
B. Increase the.potential of recommendation
extrapolation by means of more across-site exposure of
variables and treatments, even if done at the expense of the
number of replica. :tions
C. Fixing the non-experimental variables close to the
range of possibilities typical to the small farmers'
practices.
D. The definition of priorities for on-farm research
opportunities should distinguish two major objectives. One
objective pretends extra-reqional interpretation and should
consider standardization of field and experimental designs
fixing the nuiml:ber of variables and treatments within
experiments of common crops and/or similar practices across
the regions. The other objective is related to the specific
problems and needs of each region and should allow
flexibility in the design and conduction of the experiments.
E. .Upon planning procedures for technical support,,
more ahtention shou:ild be gi "en to the field technical
management of the experiments than to the administrative
handling of the technical issues.
6.3 Integration of research extenSion .activities
Handling limited research by the PTPA project should
consider the following strategies:
A. A priority in the involvement of CRDR's specialists
Page 43
and increase in number o+ the on-farm research activities,
especially those related to Adaptive Research Sub-Program
B. Planning research activities and discussing results
should be handled with a strong headquarter-regional
interaction, including joint working sessions at a national
level .
C. Under the limitation of resources it is recommended
to implement the suggested modifications on a sequential
basis considerign crops and/or regions as working units.
6.4 Considering the potential shown by CIMMYT's maize
experimental varieties a sub-program encouraging variety
evaluation across all regions under a systematic
experimental approach could serve as a catalyst to implement
the above suggestions. A similar approach with cassava
could also be considered.
Simultaneously, around these crops some of the CRDR's
could initiate the suggested process of identification of
research opportunities thr-ough an appropriate participation
of the "new" Technical Support Division utilizing the
information already available at the regional level.
6.5 To change the habit of the small farmers of saving,
their own seed the variety offered has to be better than
.their own. When new varieties are evaluated and accepted by
the farmers a strategy at the community level should be
implemented to encourage seed production by some
collaborating farmers, assisting them with basic seed,
portable cleaning equipment and counsel on seed production
technology. 'he selected farmers could then sell seed to
their neighbors at a premium price as a build-in incentive.
7. REFERENCES
1. AID. El Pequeno Agricuttor. 1976 Asuncion, Paraguay.
2. AID. Small Farm Technology. Project Proposal.
(Fretes Ventre y Asociados. 1982 Informe de resultados.
Evaluacion del PTPA, Asuncion, Paraguay. Unpublished).
3. MAG, SEAG. Informe Anaual 1982. Asuncion, Paraguay.
4. MAG, SEAG3 .1980. Manual de Or ganizaci on y Procedimi entos.
PTPA. San Lorenzo, Paraguay,, Three volumes (Unpublished).
Page 2
ANNEX A Amenmenet: Organization Manual,
Section 5, Chapter I and II
Definicion de concepts y responsabilidades
referentes a trabajos de ident:i-icacion y transferencia
de tecnoloqias en el PTPA
iDy.vesti5g9i n contratda: Estudio realizado
exclusivamente por tecnicos de un institute experimental,
+acultacd v otro organismo especializado, para averiguar la
viabilidad de una practice o de un conjunto de ellas, o para
identi ficar los medios para solucionar un problema. Los
tecnicos del SEAG participant unicamente en la identification
del problema, e el suministro de in+ormaciones adicionales
que los investigadores soliciten y en la reception de los
resultados obtenidos.
iy.nv.t.9Q81cion adaPtat.ivj: Estudio realizado para
verificar, en condiciones de finca, los resiultados
provenientes de la investigation realizada a nivel de
institutes. Ella permitira seleccionar la practice mas
convenient de entire varias opciones promisorias, o
modi-icando eventualmente ciertos aspects de la information
basic.
Por basarse en investigaciones basics anteriores, se
limitara a someter a prueblos tratamientos mas eficientes,
comparandolos con un testigo que sera, pre+erentemente el
usual en las fincas de la zona. Esto significa que las
parcelas de investigation adaptative estaran un minimo de
tratamientos, con el numero adecuado de replicas que la
metodologia cientifica exige.
La responsabilidad principal de esta area recae en los
especialistas del SEAG, quienes requiriran la cooperation de
los especialistas de la investigation para asesorar lo
concerniente a diseno y eva ulacion dei ensayo en especially
de la canduccian del trabajo en general.
Por otra part, dara participation amplia a los agents
del SEAG de la zona y al agricul tor-cooperador en todas las
f'Eaes del trabajo.
Se recomienda extramar las precauci ones tendientes a
evitar la duplicacion de trahajos yi verificados a nivel de
finca, asi como la investigation de aspects que no ofrecen
un potential de bene-icio sustancial.
PrEoectog p.il. ot Emprendimiento destinado a introducir
y/o probar en una zona nuevos rubros, equipos, implements,
instalacion-es y tecnologias para probar combinaciones de
rubros tendientes a una mejor utilizacion de los recursos
productivos de la finca.
Page 3
Por su naturaleza original, vale decir, sin
antecedentesen la zona, las mas de las veces faltara el
elmento de comparacion a testiqo.
L..a responsabilidad principal de la instalacion y
conduccion del Proyecto corresponde a los especialistas del
SEA6, con la cooperation de los Agentes y la eventual
asesoria de especialistas de atras instituciones.
C h, I do n ,. tt .. Y. Trabajo destinado a -exhibi.r
ante los interesados los resultados que se obtienen con la
aplicacion de practices ya comprobadas a nivel de finca. Lz
practice "mejorada" que se desea introducir debera
compararse con la tradicionalmente empleada en la zona.
La responsabilidad principal del trabajo corresponde a
los Agentes de Extension, con la asesoria permanent de los
especialistas del SEAG.
ANNEX C: PERSONS
Ing. Juan Molinas
Inq. Lino Morel
Ing. Miguel Ruiz Arce
Ing. Melciades Artecona
Ing. Ramon Artecona
Ing. Augusta Vasquez
Ing. Lopez-Portilla
Ing. Reinaldo Moreno
Ing. Nimia Achar
Ing. Miguel Aquino
Ing. Santander
Ing. Gonzalez
Ing. Quintana
Ing. Norma Villalba
Ing. Graciela Lopez
Dr. Baez
Sr. Aponte
Sr. Coronel
Ing. Candido Bogado
Ing. Leonardo Galeano
Ing. Arnulfo Alcaraz
Ing. Adalberto Cann
Dr. Jose Ocampos
.Ing Luis Il-dina
Ing, Maria Esther Sanchez
Ing. Guillermo Cespedes
Ing. Gustav Watkins
AND INSTITUTIONS VISITED
SEAG
SEAS
SEAG
SENSE
SENSE
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
, E. '
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAS
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG
SEAG-AID
Faqe 4
Ing. Norma Simpson
Ing. Juan Guerrero
Ing. Juan Sabela
Ing. Abe Pena
Ing. Oscar Carballo
Ing. Sinfordiano Paniagqua
Inq. Molina
Ing. Carlos Paniagua
Ing. Antonio Schaporaloff
Ing. Bertoni
Ing. Villalba
Ing. Caceres
Ing. Rosita Benitez
Ing. Mangano
Sr. Florentin Ayala
Sr. Rodriguez
SEAG-A I D
SEAG-AID
SEAG-AID
AID
A ID
CRIA
CRIA
CRIA
I AN
I AN
IAN
IAN
IAN
Farmer
Farmer
Page 5
ANNEX A (2nd part)
Responsabilidades y Caracteristicas de Labores de Investigacion
y Transferencias de Tecnologias en el PTPA
Actividades Responsabilidad Cooperacion Diseno
principal Tratamientos Replicas
Invest.Contratada Investigadores Especialistas Sin limita- Las necesarias
del SEAG cones
Invest.Adaptativa Especialistas Investigadores Limitado a Las necesarias
SEAG Agentes SEAG los mejores
Productores
Proyecto Piloto Especialistas Investigadores Unico No hay
SEAG Agentes SEAG
Productores
Proy.Demonstrativo Agentes SEAG Productor Dos;Tradi- No hay
cional y me-
jorada
ANNEX B. TITLES AND RELEVANT INFORMATION OF CONTRACTED AND ADAPTIVE RESEARCH
INVESTING .C I ON CONTRATADA
CRDR Aspecto Tecnico Responsible de la Fecha Terminaclon Estado Actual Resultado Futuro del Proyecto
Ejacucion Lugar (nicio
Itapua
II
II
Azociacion Mandio
ca-Poroto
Asociacion Mandio
ca/Malz
Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra de Malz
Densidad en Maiz
Asociaclorq aiz
Poroto
.Ensayo de Fungicidat"
en tomate
Densidad en Malz
IAN (Pirebebuy) VIII/82 Vil/83
IAN
II
"
CRIA
Asociacion Malz
Poroto
Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra en Maiz
Densidad y Variedades
de Ajo
Introducclon de Materla-
les geneticos de habilla
Vill/82 VI1/83
V1/82 11/83
V1/82 11/83
VI/82 1/83
VI/82 XI1/82
VII/82 111/83
VI11/82 111/83
VI11/82 VI/83
IV/82 IX/82
VI1/82 XI/82
Creclmlonto en Man- Pendiente
dioca poroto Cosech.
Pasara a IA
Crecimlento en Man-
dioca, Maiz Cosech.
Culminado
Culminado
Culminado
Culminado
Analisis Es-
tadistico
Analisis Es-
tadistico
Analisis Es-
tadistico
Informe final
Cordillera
ANNEX B. TITLES AND RELEVANT INFORMATION.OF CONTRACTED AND ADAPTIVE RESEARCH
INVEST I.ACION CONTRATADA
CRDR Aspecto Tecnico Responsable de la Fecha Termlnaclon Estado Actual Resultado Futuro del Proyecto
Ejacucion Lugar inicio
- ;- -
Azociacion Mandio
ca-Poroto
Asociacion Mandio
ca/Maiz
IAN(prlbebuy)
Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra de Malz
Densidad en Maiz
Asociacion, Malz
Poroto
Ensayo de Fungicidas
en tomate
Itapua
Densidad en Malz
CRIA
" Asociacion Maiz
Poroto
Diferentes Epocas de
Siembra en Maiz
" Densidad y Variedades
de Ajo
f" tntroduccion de Materla-
les genetlcos de habilla
VI11/82 VII/83
VIII/82 VI1/83
VI/82 11/83
VI/82 11/83
V1/82 1/83
VI/82 XI1/82
VI1/82 111/83
VI11/82 111/83
VI11/82 VI/83
IV/82 1X/82
V11/82 XI/82
Creclmlonto en Man- Pendiente
dioca poroto Cosech.
Pasara a IA
Crecimiento en Man-
dioca, Maiz Cosech.
Culminado
Culminado
Culminado
Culminado
Analisis Es-
tadistico
Analysis Es-
tadistico
Analisis Es-
tadistico
Informe final
Cordi lera
ANNEX B (3rd page)
INVESTIGATION ADAPTATIVA
CRDR Agencia Aspecto Tecnico Estado Actual y Actividades Realizados
Rend. Comparativo de
3 Var. de poroto
Met. de plantacionde
Mandioca
Concluido Envio de Analisis Estatistico
Desarrollo de la Planta. Seguimiento y
control
Pina
Itapua
lordi llera
qeembucu
C.Bogado
I'
E.Ayala y
Piribebuy
Piribebuy
Caacupe
I.Umbu
Esayo Comparative de
Variedades y Epoca de
Siembra en Soja
Ensayo comparative de
dif. dietas en Cerdo
de razas mejorados
Introduca de Var. de
Girasol p/alim. porci-
na y produce, de polen
Metodo de plantacion con
diferentes Var. de Man-
dioca.
Ensayo de Variedades de
Mani
Cosechado
Culminado
Culminado D R
Crecim. y desarrollo
Finalizado
'araguari Ybycui
Encalado de Cebolla
Crecim. y desarrollo
Ensayo de 3 Var. de Ajo Crecim. y desarrollo
:entra I
Villeta
i I I
|
RSS
HIDE
